Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3290 (ALL)

Balvinder v. State of U. P.

2014-11-05

VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK

body2014
JUDGMENT Vijay Prakash Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 13.05.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur in complaint case no.258 of 2014 (Meenu Vs. Balvinder and others), under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no offence has been made out against the petitioner and the complaint was filed with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment only. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate without considering the entire material has illegally summoned the petitioner to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the learned Magistrate after considering the entire material, including the allegations in the complaint, statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively has come to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly summoned him to face trial. It is also submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate as at present a prima facie case is to be seen and considered. 5. After considering the arguments advanced by the rival parties' counsel, the impugned summoning order along with all other material available on record, I find no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. All the averments made on behalf of the petitioner are related to the disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen and considered in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para- 10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the summoning order in the case as aforesaid is refused. 7. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner appears/ surrenders before the court below within a period of thirty days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and disposed of by the learned court below in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, (2009) 4, SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. 8. For a period of thirty days from today no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of finally.